Can AI Replace the Managerial Elite? | 3/25/26

Hey, everybody. How's it going? Thanks for joining me this afternoon. I am or in Mac

entire before we get started today. I just want to remind you that one of the ways we keep

the lights on around here is of course subscriptions to blaze TV. So if you want to support

the show and you also want to get access to all the great behind-the-scenes footage from

your favorite blaze TV host, you need to head to blazetv.com and use the promo code or

to get $20 off your subscription today. That's blazetv.com slash orn to get $20 off your subscription

today. Hey guys, if you have been following my channel for a while, if you're familiar with

my work at all, you know that managerial theory, elite theory, is something that I find very interesting.

It's a realm of politics that I think is criminally understudied, but one that I am obsessed with.

So the nature of how managerial systems work together, how they impact our politics and how they

lead us to particular conclusions in our political life, these are all things that I really obsess

over because I think that while this has already been a very dominant thing that we have needed

to understand since basically FDR and the new deal, it continues to grow in importance and it's

shifting in very important ways and one of the really important ways that is shifting is AI.

AI has a lot of possibilities to shake up pretty much every aspect of human civilization from art

to government to finance to the way that we work with each other or the way we even understand

our own existence. I think people who undersell the impact that ADI is going to have on the

entire civilization are really missing the boat on this. When I get that there are a lot of technological

advances that get oversold in their importance, but I really do believe that artificial intelligence

is going to be a watershed moment in a lot of areas and one of those areas is the way we organize

our governments. AI is going to revolutionize the way that we understand our interactions with the

state, the way that the state can attempt to manage us, which is something that I think a lot of

people are uncomfortable with. I'm certainly uncomfortable with, but something we have to acknowledge

that the state is always trying to do and we'll get better at doing as AI steps into the frame.

So I want to start by playing you a clip from the CEO of Senegal talking about what they think

AI is going to be able to do. The area of recklessness is the spending of governments around the world

who are all with little exception all spending well beyond their means. That's the recklessness

of this moment in history. This is not a parallel to the 1920s in terms of the recklessness

of the private capital markets. It's a story of the recklessness of government spending.

Within the private sector there's a huge questionist where AI will take us and I was carefully

taking notes and listening to what Larry has to say or to what Madame Lagarde has to say because

this is one of the big issues of our moment. Will AI create the productivity acceleration

that is honestly this hoped for in Washington and in the halls of government around the world

as a ways to overcome the profit-consuming that we're currently engaged in?

Like the world needs a savior and the hope is that AI is the savior that we need for productivity

and the challenge with this is it is it may or may not be we just don't know yet.

So you'll see there that he used the word savior. Now interestingly a lot of Silicon Valley

guys when they're being honest about it will acknowledge that ultimately they see their

construction of AI as possibly a construction of a new deity of creating their own God.

And this is something that of course is deeply ingrained in human existence. We only have to go

back to the creation of the golden calf by the Hebrews as an example of how deeply it is ingrained

in our human understanding to want to create some form of God for ourselves even when we know

where the real thing is even if you've been following like the real thing through the desert

ultimately is very easy for people to fall away and want to create their own God for many

different reasons because of course a God you create is also a God at some level that you think

you understand or you think that you can control or have influence over. And this is obviously

something that we want to tell ourselves as limited human beings. And there's also a deep strain

inside of I think particularly the Anglo understanding of the world to want to kind of replace God

with a logical system. Understanding that there is ultimately something that undergirds our reality

but we want it to be something that we control. We understand that we can kind of grasp in a very

physical sense. And so in this way an AI God could stand in for the divine and would be something

we're far more comfortable with even as we think of all the horrible implications that that

could also carry many of the same people who will talk about creating an AI God will also acknowledge

that a lack of control over AI could have very disastrous results for the human race. And so we have

this weird pull towards creating something we know is possibly going to destroy us at the very

least will radically change the way that we live. But we still feel compelled to bring this thing

into existence. It's as if it's bringing itself into existence through us. This is a process that

the philosopher Nick Land calls hyperstition. And if you're familiar with my channel, you also know

I'm going to use a good amount of Nick Land as I discuss this issue. However, it's very interesting

in this case that the Citadel CEO talked about AI not just as a God, but as a savior. And he says

that it's the spending of these governments that is ultimately out of control. And perhaps AI

can produce the level of productivity necessary to help us escape this scenario. Now, that's a very

interesting admission because one of the things that I've speculated on routinely when it comes

to artificial intelligence is the possibility of it stepping in for the current function of the

managerial elite. So quick refresher. I've done many different videos in an entire book called

the total state on the nature of the managerial elite and the world that they have created.

But we're going to need some of those basics to have this discussion. So I'll give you the

cliff notes. But if you want a lot more, there are plenty of videos and factors entire playlists

of which this video will be part that lays out kind of the thesis about the managerial elite,

who they are, what they do, how they came into being, and the implications for our social organization.

But as I've said before, scale is something that is incredibly difficult to achieve in human

endeavors. One of the things that we've seen over time is that there seem to be natural boundaries

to human organization. At first, it was something like the tribe and eventually it evolved into something

like the city state. We saw empires of regional context and then perhaps continent-spanning

empires and eventually global empires. And at each stage of this increase in complexity,

we've had to find new ways to administer our societies. And the ways that we do this can

vary quite greatly, especially as technological innovations change the way that we do things

like communicate with each other. We make deliveries, we supply energy, just fundamental ways

that our humanity can change as we scale up our civilization. And each one of these,

it comes very often from the increased inefficiency. More efficient processes allow for greater output,

which tends to allow you to scale higher and higher. However, to achieve this maximum maximization

of industrial capacity, economic capacity, social organization, everything else,

we've had to create rather artificial structures on which to kind of lay our social skeleton.

So one of the things that we've done is created these large bureaucratic institutions. Now,

bureaucratic institutions have existed on some level throughout history. In fact,

so one of the core points about elite theories, you tend to oscillate between more feudal

societies and more bureaucratic societies. And so we obviously had bureaucracies before we entered

the modern age. But the thing that makes the modern bureaucracy rather different is the level

of technology that goes along with it. The ability to mass communicate, to instantaneously

conduct a meeting or distribute orders or move dollars around, manipulate the economy at scale,

these things create a very different environment in which the velocity of information and dollars

and everything else flows. And so it becomes really important for us to have this social scaffolding

that allows the government to interact with its population and frankly manage its population

in order to produce the efficiency that generates the outcomes it needs to scale.

So for instance, we've invested a whole lot in large government bureaucracies, educational

bureaucracies, media, economic institutions, all of these things help us operate our societies

at a much higher level than we would have if we did not have them. It allows us to have

nations that are spanning continents or empires that even span the world. We have lots of

global interactivity because of this managerial structure. However, the managerial structure does

have limitations for a couple of reasons. One, the managerial structure requires us to become

inhuman at some level. The managerial structure is looking to strip out the differences that

different cultures, peoples, religions, folkways contain because the more you can standardize

the process, the more you can reliably produce the result. And really, efficiency is very often

about reliably producing the same result over and over again. If we know what we're getting,

even if what we're getting is not the best, then we can plan for it. If we can plan for it,

we can manage it, and if we can manage it, we can make sure to increase the level efficiency

at which those processes operate. And so it's really important to managerial structures that

we don't have a lot of these issues like, oh, you have to take off a certain amount of time because

of a religious observance or because you have children or your own willing to go through this

particular process that makes the government more money or more powerful because you have certain

expectations about the way your community should interact. Well, these are all big hindrances to

managerial processes and they need to be stripped away. So turning people into less human forms

is a critical aspect of managerial theory. However, ironically, another limitation on managerial

theory is it ultimately is still human. There is still a human actor involved and there's only

so much efficiency you can derive from the human being itself. The human needs sleep, the human

needs rest, the human needs relaxation. They need to be paid. They need to have some kind of family

interaction as hard as our managerial elites are working to strip out these religious aspects and

these familial bonds. Eventually, they're just degrading the quality of the very people they're

attempting to manage because when you strip away people's connections to their community, to their

family, when you take away their purpose, their religion, when you take away all these other

codes and all these other relations that truly embed us in a human society in order to scale us up

into these managerial constructs, you're ultimately robbing us of what makes us happy and that's

going to work for a while. But as you can probably see as you look around you from the plummeting

rates of happiness across pretty much all these metrics, you recognize that no, there is a

significant cost to this. Yes, we are scaling up, we are creating more efficiency. Often in

areas that don't really matter, we're really good at flat screen TV making, very cheap flat screen

TV making, but we're miserable. And so like ultimately, yes, you are creating these higher levels

of economic output and trade and organization, but it's costing these populations something.

And ultimately, a lot of these CEOs realize that the burden of maintaining these human costs while

trying to increase efficiency is a real problem. So it's been a push for a long time to try to

figure out how you can transcend even the limits of the managerial class. We've scaled things

up as high as we can get. We've produced the most efficiency that we can out of these human

systems. We made them as inhuman as we can while still operating them with humans, right? And this

is if you watch anything, if you go back and watch like Terry Gilliam's movie Brazil or you look at

other kind of dystopian future understandings, this is an aspect of technology that is recognized

over and over again, that it locks humans into these deeply inhuman processes, even guys like Ted

Kaczynski had the very wrong idea about how to solve this problem, but wrote extensively about

how it was a very real thing that was constantly impacting the well-being of humans and had to

change at some fundamental level. However, the plan it seems as you're listening to a guy like the

CEO of Citadel there is we're going to replace even the managerial class with AI and that AI is

going to be far more efficient at what it's doing because it doesn't need to take breaks and it

doesn't have a family and it doesn't need to go to church and it doesn't feel bad about not having

that stuff because it's always working, it's always running these processes in the background,

it's far more efficient at doing many of the spreadsheets and other like actuarial

tasks and other core functions of managerialism, managerialism tends to be something that routinely

wants to apply exactly the same process over and over again to standardize results and so in a way

we have already made our systems perfectly aligned with what AI wants to do because AI at least in

its current state isn't going to do a lot of creative problem solving, but what it's very good at

is reiterating on particular systems that have already been thoroughly dehumanized. So AI is going

to be very good at sorting your bureaucratic messes, you're not going to need a DMV, you're not

going to need people operating any of these bureaucracies that are currently critical to the operation of

our modern world because you know AI is just going to handle all that stuff. Now there's a lot of

upsides to that, right? Like we on the right, especially those of us who are probably often

described as a dissonarite, we recognize the evils of these bureaucracies, the need for them to go,

how they aren't really necessary to society but are often just serving as you know jobs programs for

our enemies, patronage programs for opposing political parties, these kind of things. And so we

can, I think legitimately say that there are a lot of positives to the idea that AI could ultimately

liberate us from the need for human bureaucracies because that means that we're not going to have to

interact with this stuff on a regular basis. In fact, in many ways, this was the core promise

of neo-reaction. neo-reaction is a wide-ranging collection of different political outlooks,

but broadly falls under this understanding that there's something critical that needs to shift in

the core of the modern nation state in order to allow us to live in a better way. And one of the ways

that was often seen that that could occur in our in our X was technological innovation that ultimately

made smaller states possible. So what we've seen for a very long time really for thousands of years

at this point is that increasing complexity has had mostly advantages and very few disadvantages. Now

over time, we've seen inefficient bureaucracies and sprawling empires come apart. They reach the

kind of the edge of the efficiency that they could produce through their like proto-managerial

regimes, their kind of oligarchic or bureaucratic systems, you know, the Byzantine systems that tend

to crop up in late empire. So there were downsides to maximizing, you know, the scale of your

empire. But it was mainly as you wanted to get up as far as you could to the edge of that without

going over, right? Like that was pretty much the goal. And not everybody succeeded in that. In fact,

literally everyone failed. That's kind of why there is this natural life cycle of empires. But what

we've seen is over time, every iteration of this, the impact of scale got more and more powerful,

especially after we hit the age of discovery, we hit kind of the global capitalist network once we

start having the ability to trade across borders and have these economic advantages. Once we see

science start to accelerate in its discoveries and its productions and interact with capital,

we see that this whole process speeds up quite rapidly. And the hope was like, ultimately, yes,

scale had been the answer for a long time. But if we get enough technology to overcome the advantages

of just raw human beings, raw number of human beings, then maybe that means we can scale society

back down. And this was what was often called patchwork in neo reaction. The idea that you would

have these little patches, these mini states, which you would probably think of in more classic

sense as a city state, a place like Singapore, you know, the old joke is let there be a thousand

lixon signs. This idea that the smaller sovereign areas could start to emerge. And you can start to

see how that might be possible in our modern age. Of course, the big advantages of scale right now

have been the ability to just move mass amounts of people, mass amounts of economic force to produce

a large amount of military force to leverage your mass production and mass consumption as a overall

advantage. This has been why we keep seeing the rise of larger and larger states. That's why a place

Europe considered turning into the European Union instead of just having smaller states because

they figured out they had to start competing with places like Russia and China and the United States,

and they could not do it in their current form. You can go back to Machiavelli and the desire to

unify Italy as an understanding of why scale continued to be so much more powerful. However,

we're starting to see scale hit its limits, right? That's kind of the whole point. That's why they're

looking for AI as a new way to do things because scale has hit its limits. And if AI introduces

a way in which we can replicate the advantages of a managerial bureaucracy, but without the number

of people or the number of resources necessary to operate one, well, then we have a real discussion

on whether or not we can scale down our societies because if we're seeing the negative impacts of

scale, we're seeing the social disillusion, the loss of national identity, the loss of social

fabric, the spiritual degradation that occurs, the fact that your elites seem to separate and

hold in contempt, the homeland for which your empire sprung, and we're seeing all these negative

impacts. Maybe we can avoid so many of those by scaling back down into more reasonably sized

human communities that can leverage the advantages of things like AI to still operate at a very high

level. We also see, of course, increases in kind of these wildcat technologies that would allow

a city state to protect itself. So things like drone warfare make it very clear that all of a sudden

maybe you don't need a army of millions of people to be a significant threat to those that want to

invade you, perhaps simply having a well-placed set of tactical drones and understanding of how to

use certain technologies, a symmetrical warfare could make you a dangerous enough target to where

most people, even those of larger sizes, are not going to want to attack your city state.

And so this creates a moment where we can start to consider shrinking back down into these

much smaller human arrangements. And that's important because in addition to solving all these

other problems of social scale, it also provides the possibility that we could have sovereignty

at this smaller unit of governance, which again just radically changes the way that humans can

understand a healthy order, a healthy social order. They don't have to always make the trade

of scale. There might be other options. Of course, there are problems with trying to scale down,

right? Like, it doesn't mean that AI just has to be used to scale things down. In fact,

it's very clear from guys like the Citadel CEO, they're much more interested in using AI to

continue to scale up. AI could create these city states. It could create these smaller civilizational

zones, but it could also be used by the same people who are currently operating these massive

networks, these attempts to globalize human existence to achieve that without costing them as

much, right? Like they can ultimately just replace the managerial elite and all of the negative

consequences of maintaining these massive human bureaucracies. You can even transcend the limitations

of human organization functionally to scale up to the maximalist extent. And so, we, while many people

like myself, if we're bullish on AI at all, it can be as this way to replace the managerial elite

and allow for smaller civilizations. And that's something I hope AI does. Like, I have many, many

skeptivisms of AI. Again, if you watch this channel, you know that's true. But the one upside,

the one continuous upside that I've been sold that I would like to believe in that I think would be a

true value to humanity is the removal of the need for mass managerial systems in order to operate

humanity at scale to maintain these massively scaled civilizations. But there's no guarantee that

that's what AI gets used for. Even if it can produce that outcome. And I think it can. It doesn't

mean that that's the only way it gets deployed. And if it's, if AI enables the advantages of

scale more efficiently or at least at the same level of efficiency, as it does shrink down those

advantages of scale to smaller nations, well, then ultimately these large civilizations that have

both the advantage of scale and efficiency through AI will probably still win out, right? So,

it does the opposite of solving our problem here. And so we run into this very serious problem

because it becomes very clear that as we're hoping, perhaps the AI brings about this revolution that

frees us from the tyranny of massive empire of globalist understandings of civilization,

it could also do exactly the opposite. And we have to be very careful about how this gets done.

Because if we are looking to transcend the limits of human organization, we are by definition

looking to become less human, right? Like that is one of the things that is critical about humanity.

If you think of somebody like Martin Heidegger, and he talks about Daw sign, the nature of human

beings, like the actual state of being. And one of the things he says that really makes

Daw sign what it is, what makes human existence what it is, is its recognition of its own limitations,

its turn towards its own mortality. I will not live forever. And because I will not live forever,

my life has certain meanings. Everything in my life has a very particular context that I cannot escape.

And unlike a rabbit or something else that does have mortality but is not conscious of that

mortality, my consciousness of that ending, that limitation really does radically alter the way

that I behave. And we see this again, you can look at, you know, tales like an interview with a

vampire or Highlander or Tuck Everlasting, if you remember that book from elementary school.

And these are been like the first time that you really contemplated what it would mean to live

without limits, right? What would it mean to live 100 lifetimes or 10 lifetimes or a thousand

lifetimes? How would that change your interaction with the world? It wouldn't just be a small thing.

Like the fact that you now have an eternity that you now have a completely limitless existence

from at least a temporal perspective is a radical change. Again, you can look at lower the rings

or you can look at even Warhammer 40K, you know, and these are fantasy properties or sci-fi

properties in a lot of ways. And of course, there's a silly aspect to this. But they, if you look

at the elves in those stories, they also kind of endure this change in understanding, right?

Like they live very different lives than the limited creatures around them because they don't

expect to have a natural death or at least not one for a very long time. And so their existence

is radically changed. Like their ontological understanding is radically different because they do not

have that natural in that natural limitation. And the temporal example is one that I think is most

relatable because it's one that we've seen explored on a regular basis when it comes to our fiction.

But one of the things that we haven't seen explored as much and really kind of, I think,

popped into our consciousness later on, especially with something like the explosion of

Vodriard and the Matrix, popularizing kind of his understanding, is what happens if we

transcend certain aspects of our humanity in a very real sense, not just our temporal humanity,

but what if we, you know, transcended our physical limitations, our limitations when it came into

organizing our society. What if, what if those things change in an incredibly radical way?

What would that do to us as humans? You know, a lot of people will point to very correctly to

CS Lewis's fantastic book, book, that hideous strength, which was based off of his famous essay

where he talks about men without chests. You know, this is this is probably if you've heard

CS Lewis quoted, you've probably seen something from these works. And you know, this is itself

an exploration of many of these themes. So it's something that I think has entered into the

modern consciousness, especially once you kind of get to perhaps, you know, Mary Shelley's

Frankenstein is often kind of held up as the first sci-fi work. But ever since we've had science

fiction, it has at some level addressed this idea that we could transcend, not just our mortality,

but other aspects of our human existence and how that would warp and change us in very serious ways.

And I think we have to look at the same thing when it comes to how we organize societies.

If we transcend all the classical limitations of the ancient city on levels of scale, on, you know,

familial relations, you know, religion, everything else, we fundamentally change the nature of humans

in a way that we might not be able to get back. That's kind of CS Lewis's point in the abolition of

man is once you have created the last generation that knew those limitations, new human nature,

new what it was to be human at your core, then it's possible that you could lose everything going

forward because the next generation would simply have no understanding of humanity in a very

real sense. They would, you would have abolished man because you have taken all the limitations,

all the things that are, you know, attached to what people will cynically call our meat suit,

right? And this is, this is often again a dream that is nested in many classic desires.

Nosticism is often pointed to as, you know, this desire to transcend the physical in a real way,

the human limitation, many spiritual practices are about pushing the body to its limitations,

to kind of reach, you know, the ability to kind of touch the divine, the nominal, the thing in

itself in a way that you could not do otherwise. And I think this is ultimately why many people,

including guys like Nick Land, who again, I respect his, his thinking quite a bit, but whose objectives

I often disagree with. And one of the things that he often looks for is this Nietzschean transcendence

of human nature as such, who achieve a higher existence beyond our physical bodies, like things like

space travel, things, you know, like exploring the galaxy, achieving certain scientific

understandings. And I think in his case, understandings of the world would require a disembodiment

of human intelligence. And that's kind of what we're trying to do with AI here. And that's,

I think what many of these people are ultimately giving birth to, whether they recognize it or not,

you know, when I interviewed Nick Land, he said that the managerial elite were kind of this

human security system against us finally escaping into something different to making this,

you know, Nietzschean transcendent move. And there's probably some truth to that, like there is

something innately human that is still wrapped up in the managerial elite, even if they have

made us less human in their journey towards kind of our current society. But I think that he might

be wrong about the role that the managerial elite are ultimately play. Perhaps he would see the

destruction of managerial elite through AI as just kind of the final, you know, destruction of

the human security system and the final leap to transcend. But I don't think you would even get

to that point if it wasn't for these managers, because one of the things you have to remember about AI

is while you think of it as something that just exists in your pocket when you click on, you know,

Groc on Twitter or, you know, Gemini on Google or something else, ultimately what you're really

touching is a large amount of like actual physical resources that are being expended.

We've already heard the explosions of AI and how that's impacting different areas of AI

companies buying up large tracks of land, you know, drawing huge amounts, vast amounts of power from

the grid, polluting water as they kind of create these massive plants. In addition to creating these

massive AI plants and the environmental and human impact that they're causing, they also create,

shortages and things like chips for your computer, RAM and video processing chips. And these

are essential for people's day to day lives. So as you get further and further down this AI path,

it's becoming harder and harder to have like a personal PC experience to have those things.

But they are all being put into like these AI farms. And so you're being removed from even

that computing process. It's becoming more and more abstract to you as a human being. You interact

less and less with the physical components of computing and the digitization of the world.

And that becomes more and more of this self-contained sealed off process that is occurring away

from human input, which is again what Nick Land predicted in his theory of accelerationism.

So you understand when we're talking about technological, technical capital acceleration,

we are not talking about political acceleration. That's a totally different thing. The idea that

you just make things worse because that allows you to like build your utopia after the collapse of

society. That is a completely different thing. Unfortunately, that's become the popular understanding

of phrase accelerationism. So I just want to make that clear. That's not what I'm talking about at

all. That's a stupid ideology. What I'm talking about is this technical capital acceleration that

brings us to the possibility of the singularity where a non-human intelligence takes what that which

was human and brings it out somewhere else, like takes off to the stars. And this is really

Nick Land's understanding that humanity is valuable in the sense that it produces

intelligence. That intelligence itself, intelligence for intelligence is the goal. It's not intelligence

for the better of humanity or the continuation of your people, but it is the creation of intelligence

for intelligence sake. Now, Land prefers different cultures for this. He says very specifically,

the Anglo people have a incredibly high rate of production of intelligence and have a unique ability

to kind of create this Faustian transcendence. He also has spoken about East Asian and Jewish

intelligence as also being impressive and could possibly be kind of melded into this project. But

his whole point is ultimately what we're looking for is this disconnection from the material.

We want this creation of intelligence that can do things that no other human could do. That

as long as humanity is bound or intelligence is bound up to human concerns, it will never reach

its full potential. He calls this monkey business. As long as our intelligence is still trying to keep

kind of our monkey bodies alive in his words, then it will never create this kind of utopian

understanding, or at least this transcendent understanding, and utopians the wrong word for

Perlady recognizes, I think, many of the horrors that could come out of this, but ultimately

embraces them in the search for this transcendence. So I think it's a very interesting moment

because while a lot of these tech companies are familiar with Land's work, I'm not sure they

always understand the implications of what they're doing. I certainly don't think that the managers

who are attempting to swap out their current cadre with artificial intelligence really understand how

possibly irrelevant they could be making themselves. I don't think they would be so eager to engage

in this if they thought they would come into that. However, they really can't help themselves

because a lot of the strategy that the managerial elites have deployed has made it impossible for

them to really continue to govern in any other way. The managerial elite have created these vast

scales that they obviously can't ultimately keep up with. As he said, the efficiency simply does

not exist. So they're out of road really when it comes to improving or increasing the control

of the managerial bureaucracy dehumanizing their populations. But also because of some of the

decisions made by the managerial elite to create this process, they've made their own governments

more and more difficult to manage while increasing their scale. So for instance,

one guy Ed Dutton has made the assertion, and I think this is largely correct, that Christianity was

kind of the ultimate technology of scale previously, like before the modern world. Because before

Christianity, religion was largely very tribal. It was really tied to your ethnos, your people in a very

definitive way. Usually, in many cases, you had household gods that couldn't even be worshiped

by anyone outside of your household. If you read The Ancient City by Fustel de Colange,

you'll find him talking about how basically the Roman Empire had to break the idea of household

gods and get everyone to worship these more central gods before they could really create

this larger civilization. You couldn't have people having household-only gods or even city-only

gods. You need people to be centralized under these larger religious umbrellas. That's why

the cult of Diana and others became more popular because they allowed for larger levels of social

organization. Because people simply cannot interact with those that they do not agree with

religiously. This is why multiculturalism is a lie, and why we're seeing so many problems in

our world right now. Because all politics is fundamentally theological, and you need to share a

particular theology that ultimately have a similar goal. One of the things that Christianity

let you do is maximally scale up civilization under the banter of Christendom, even though you

had these other tribes and ethnic identities that continue to exist. Christianity had a nice balance

of maintaining ethnic specificity and particularity without, you know, it didn't crush that,

but it also allowed you to cooperate with other Christians. Now that wasn't always the case,

of course, there are many Christian civilizations that fought each other, but we do understand

there was kind of this somewhat pan-European identity that existed under what we call Christendom,

right? And what tied that together would allow so many peoples to kind of exist under the same

banter at different times was this idea of Christianity. Now what our manager elites have done is

turn our new theology into kind of secular humanism, right? That's become the theological practice that

ties our current empires and even our global globalist understandings together. However, as you bring

in people from other dynamic cultures, you bring in Muslims, you bring in Hindus, you bring in

people who do not believe in Christianity, and also don't really subscribe to this like secular

humanism, then you start to see the clash of the theologies play out, right? Like you recognize

these can't coexist. Now, of course, the idea from the globalists is like, well, we'll just kind of

global homo Islam before they caliphate us, right? Like that's, and they've been winning that bet

for a while, but it's starting to seem clear in places like Europe that it might lose that that,

that actually it can't really do that anymore. And this is a huge problem for the manager elite

because they don't know how to handle like truly religious people. Like they don't, they've been

busy like wearing away the Western European instinct towards religion, the Christian instinct

for religion for a long time. But the others that haven't been in constant conflict like Islam,

they have the ability to come in there and cause serious damage. And so the idea is ultimately that

AI could like solve this problem because then I don't have to worry about the compatibility of Islam

with Hinduism and with Christianity because we've functionally made a God. We've functionally made

a savior as, you know, the CEO said in that video that exists at a top layer above everything else.

It kind of has this ultimate sovereignty that allows it to kind of dictate down to all these

other religions. And you can see this because they try to play this idea that our society is

religiously objective. Of course, that's not the case, but they sell us this idea. And it's

largely predicated on the idea that, you know, that this secular humanism will take the place and

become our political theology in a very real sense. But we have more problems because AI is not

itself neutral, right? Like AI is deployed by someone. It's been programmed by someone. You'll

notice that right before the war in Iran, the Trump administration had like a real knockdown

dragout with AI companies because the worry was that they were building restrictions into what the

AI would do when it was in the service of the United States government. What will it target?

Who will it kill? What information will it keep? What will it collect? And that's a huge problem

for a nation state for a country that wants its own sovereignty because if there is some level

of restriction built into your military technology that is dictated by some outside force,

you are no longer sovereign, right? If the US is not making decisions on what it targets, who it

kills during a war, is it really a sovereign nation? Or is there another lay of sovereignty that

exists over top of it? If an AI company gets to decide where your military goes and how it

deploys and what it targets and all these things, well, then you don't control your military.

The AI company does. And this is an incredibly dangerous scenario. And then, you know, however you

feel about the Trump administration and the current war in Iran, you can recognize the

huge problem that's baked into this because the people who design the software, the people who

create the AI, well, they're building their own presuppositions into this, right? And so the AI

is mimicking their understanding of the world. It might pervert it through different processes

or its own reasoning. But ultimately, they are still feeding in kind of the core text, the core

understanding. And therefore, the core theology that your AI has. And so a real question we might

have to ask ourselves very soon is what religion is my AI? Like, that's a really, really scary question.

But it might be one that becomes very important very quickly because if we're turning over these

decision-making patterns to AI, then that means it will deploy the theology of those that programed

it to ultimately make massive decisions about our lives. And if it's operating at a global scale

for managerial elite that is looking to maximize its reach, that means that we will probably have

the most inhuman religion you can imagine, informing the morality of those that are making the most

important decisions for our civilization. Now, one of the underlying assertions of accelerationism

is that changes in AI are functionally inevitable. You can't stop them. And in fact, they're

happening so quickly that you can't even control them. And so much of this will take on a life of

its own because we simply as humans are seeing the decision space for ourselves collapse. We don't

have time to deliberate over where AI is going before it already gets there. And so it could be

that all these questions are largely irrelevant because the AI production will continue at pace.

But I will say this, we still do not have this independent AI in any kind of energy efficient

way. And so there's also a real battle going on because AI requires this massive infrastructure,

this incredible drain on power, this destruction of the environment, which stands in real opposition

to a lot of people's wellbeing, but especially like emerging concerns from the new right,

which finds itself to be more and more environmentalist by the day. Am I going to allow AI to destroy

my homeland so that it can scale up civilization for globalists? How long can a civilization,

especially a globe-spanning empire, based on AI, operate if people start, you know,

targeting AI centers and saying, I don't want this around anymore. I don't want this controlling me

and I know how to stop it. These are very fragile. You know, this is really a glass cannon that is

being constructed. It might be able to scale up and create incredible amounts of efficiency

if it's operating, but we've already seen with things like airtime travel and just-in-time delivery

that our civilization is already losing the ability to maintain the systems. And so the real

question is, can AI race in a way that can develop quick enough to maintain itself, where it

doesn't need humans to do this anymore and it doesn't have to take in to account the concerns of

humans? Because otherwise, there's always the human option of simply destroying AI in its crib

and kind of resetting things, which would itself have disastrous results.

So I don't have any immediate solutions to this and I know this isn't like a super happy episode,

but these are just things that I think about, things that I'm trying to understand, things that

I think are critical to the future of our country and I think are a humanity as a whole and things we

are not thinking enough about in my opinion. So I just want to start the conversation with my own

theories. If you have some of yours, you have some input. By all means, please put it down in the

comments below. I'd love to see what you're thinking about this, but that said, let's go to the

questions of the people. Many youth says the concept of progress acts as a protective mechanism

to shield us from the tears of the future. Frank Herbert, dude, yep, yeah, fantastic. And of course,

Frank Herbert thought a lot about this before anyone else did. Also has the famous line from

Dune about, you know, men turning their thinking over to machines, but then being ruled by other

men who understood how to use those machines. All of these very relevant. Dune is a very relevant

book to today. It's not, it's not just Star Wars Slop, like Dune is actually a pretty important book to me.

Jackson Day says, don't worry. If it does create a productivity boost, governments will just spin

that too. Yeah, they will, right? Which is kind of its own problem. Like the machine continues to

feed itself, it continues to need to expand. There's never enough for it, but that actually just

makes me more concerned, not not less concerned, because that means that even once we do achieve

like this maximalist efficiency from AI, the desire will simply be to make things less human,

to produce more AI centers, to build more and more of our civilization to this other efficient

form of production. We could be seeing the move from mass managerial structures to AI structures,

as like a, and at the same level of civilization change. In the same way that the industrial

revolution changed humanity and how it understands itself, we might be seeing that with AI.

David Dodin says, scaling down administrators is a fool's errand. Many of them are invented

to create ethnic picture network, AI affirmative action admins say urban airport TSA is no better.

Yeah, and again, that's entirely possible. But this is true about AI in general, right? Like one of

the problems with AI is it destroys employment across the board. It'll destroy patronage networks

just as easily as it destroys all these other possible employment opportunities that it's going

to take from human beings. So the automation of ethnic employment networks creates its own

problems that, you know, that they'll have to tackle. But I really don't know how that will

ultimately be spun out. He also says, their concern is the national debt. How can think and

buds deal with a global government debt default? America's remittance schemes still required

to avoid their usually schemes to blow up. If AI replaces the usual, the usually managers in a

healthy way, then that is a win. And again, possible, you know, entirely possible. Like I said,

this is one of the few positive aspects of AI that I've had really explained to me and like,

how will AI benefit humanity? This would be one. Though honestly, I'm still pretty skeptical.

This is ultimately going to be the way it is finally deployed. All right, guys, well, we're going

to go ahead and wrap things up. But I want to thank everybody so much for watching. It's been fantastic

to speak with you. If it's your first time on this channel, you need to go ahead and click subscribe

on YouTube, bell notification, all that stuff. So you know, when we go live, if you want to get

these broadcasts as podcasts, you need to subscribe to our McIntyre show on your favorite podcast

platform. And when you do leave a rating or review, it really helps with the algorithm magic,

which I know is a little ironic after the speech. Thank you everybody for watching. And as always,

I'll talk to you next time.